Transfer of Korfa right is invalid without the prior consent of the raiyat.

The appeal is directed against the affirming Judgment and Decree dared 17th November, 1975 and 9th February, 1976 passed by the Additional District Judge, 12th Court, Alipur in Title Appeal No. 221/76 arising out of the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif, 2nd Court, Barulpur in Title Suit No. 39/74 whereby and whereunder the plaintiffs title was declared and granted recovery of possession of the suit land.

2. Essential facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows :–

The suit land measuring 2 decimals in R. S. Plot No. 4747 appertaining to current Khatian No. 133 corresponding to C. S. Plot No. 5684 of Khatian No. 137 in Kamrabad Mouza originally was recorded in the name of one Ramanath Pramanik as Korfa-tenant After the death of Ramanath Pramanik the Korfa-tenancy right had devolved upon his son Kalipada. Kalipada sold the suit plot to Satish Chandra Pramanik under a deed of conveyance dated 9.4.1949. After death of Satish Chandra, the suit land has been inherited and in occupation of his son, viz , the plaintiffs. During the R. S. Operation, the tenant raised objection on the ground that deft constructed a pacca building on the suit land 5/6 years ago by taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiffs. Thus, it gave rise the cause of action to plaintiffs for filing the suit.

3. The appellant who was the defendant in the trial Court has seriously resisted the claim of the plaintiff by denying all materials allegations of the plaint. She, inter alia, contended that the suit plot belonged to her father-in-law Amritalal Pramanik which was devolved upon its sons on his death. She purchased the suit plot from one Sanatan and his brothers by registered Kobala dated 20th January, 1969. After acquiring the suit land by purchase, he constructed a pacca structure thereon. Thus, the plaintiff have had no title nor possession whatsoever on the suit land.

4. The learned Munsif has, however, observed that since in the record of rights the name of plaintiffs was recorded which no doubt established their possession over the suit land, although the record of rights by itself is not an evidence of title but the plaintiffs claimed title on the basis of possession, manifestly the plaintiff's claim must be allowed on the basis of such record of right. It has been further stated that the father of the plaintiff was recorded as Korfa-tenant in respect of suit land. Therefore, the tenant has no right, title or interest over the suit land. With those observations the learned trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit. The trial Court has, inter alia, held that though the sale deed under which the defendant claimed vide Ext. 'A' had been proved whereunder her husband and his brother had conveyed the suit land to the defendant but how those property had been acquired by their father could not properly be proved.

5. The appellate Court while upholding the judgment and decree of the trial Court also discussed that the plaintiff had acquired the property on the basis of a registered sale deed of the year 1949 vide Ext. 3. In the opinion of the appellate Court, since the name of the plaintiff's father Ramanath was recorded in the C. S. record of right as Korfa-tenant, the plaintiff shall get absolute title over the suit properties. In R. S. record of right it has been also shown the plaintiffs' right as Korfa-tenant. It was reiterated that the record of right carries presumptive value, particularly, when a person claims title by virtue of his possession. The appellate Court in course of discussion has also held that the recitals of the sale deed in Ext. 'A' under which the defendant has been claiming title and possession does not establish that how her father-in-law acquired the property. Therefore, in this background, lower Courts on fair comparison of the competitive claim of title between the parties held that the plaintiff was able to establish better title over the defendant.

6. Mr. Abhijit Banerjee, the learned Advocate appearing for the a